Stumbling Block for Protestants? V2

[rinnie]

Well, obviously that’s a question for discernment. Those who preach a gospel radically different to that preached by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James, etc., are probably not listening to the Holy Spirit!

I don’t understand this question; could you rephrase it please?

Probally? The word of God said the are not.

To your second question. Infallible.

 

[SteveVH]

"Infallible" generally means “free from the possibility of error,” not just “free from error.” I think that discussion is muddled when people use the term too broadly. After all, people are right about stuff fairly often (and wrong even more often, perhaps). It seems unreasonable to say that anyone who is right about anything is infallible.

Edwin

I don’t necessarily disagree with you, but if the Church was not infallible in determining the canon of Scripture then all non-Catholics who hold the Bible as their final authority must admit that there may be some things contained in the Scriptures that really shouldn’t be there and/or there may be some texts that should be there that are not. They can have no true assurance of the inspired nature of Scripture for the simple reason that you stated. If the Church is not infallible then it might have made a mistake in its determination.

The question for non-Catholics is this: By what measure do you determine the accuracy of the Church in choosing the sacred texts that make up the Bible? How do you know that the Church got it right, just this one time?

 

[rinnie]

You can say that as much as you like, but it doesn’t make it true. Besides, in Scripture, I think you’ll find that Paul is apostle to the uncircumcised…

What does this mean? Please show me the scripture so I can see what You are comming from. Thanks.

 

[Novocastrian]

Probally? The word of God said the are not.

I know.

To your second question. Infallible.

That doesn’t really rephrase the question. Could you ask it again, and then I’ll happily answer.

 

[Novocastrian]

What does this mean? Please show me the scripture so I can see what You are comming from. Thanks.

Galatians 2.7 says that Paul is the Apostle to the Uncircumcised just as Peter is Apostle to the Circumcised. They spilt the missionary work between them.

 

[Contarini]

Well, thanks for the clarification but it seems to be what you are doing, at least to me

Matthew was there - Mark and Luke were not.

That’s something I should have addressed. Of course if Matthew is by the apostle Matthew then the whole picture is different. But simply using historical methods it seems highly unlikely that it is. (What the Church requires for faith, by its authority, is a separate discussion–we are supposedly talking about what can be shown historically without appealing to the Church’s authority.) Yes, there’s very early witness to Matthew having written a Gospel. But those same witnesses say he wrote it in Hebrew. Matthew as we have it is not in Hebrew, and while it’s got a number of “Aramaisms” I don’t think any serious scholars think that the book as we have it is a translation (and by “serious scholars” I’m including very conservative ones). Quite possibly (this is my own view) there was a Hebrew text by Matthew, now lost, which served as a major source for what we have as the Gospel of Matthew (my own very speculative opinion is that this is probably what scholars call “Q,” which wouldn’t include Matt. 16 anyway).

There are scholars who think that Matthew was written first. But even they do not, for the most part, think it was written by Matthew. And they are a small minority. The vast majority of scholars think that Mark was written first. If Mark was written first, then it’s highly unlikely that Matthew wrote the Gospel as we have it. The verbal parallels with Mark are too close. (Yes, it’s possible that Matthew sat down with the text of Mark and added other things from his own recollections, but it’s extremely unlikely. I can walk you through some of the specific reasons why it’s unlikely if you really want me to . . . )

Oh, come on Edwin!

Is there an argument behind this? You are acting as if this is all wild stuff I’m making up. I’m not giving you wild theories or extreme opinions. I’m giving you basic stuff that would be agreed on even by conservative scholars, for the most part. And the idea that KoG and KoH are the same is completely non-controversial except among dispensationalists.

They are all different. Matthew was an Apostle, Mark was Peter’s Gopher

That view of Mark is indeed found in the early Christian sources, and I tend to agree with it. However, it can’t be proven, so for purposes of the “spiral argument” it won’t hold.

There’s another view of Mark also found in early Christian writings, which is that it’s an abridgement of Matthew. If Matthew was written first, and by an Apostle, then that view would appear to be correct. In other words, I think you have to choose between the opinion that Matthew as we know it was written by an apostle, and that Mark is essentially Peter’s account put into written form by Mark. The similarities between the two Gospels are far too close to be accounted for simply by the fact that they’re telling the same story. (John is telling the same story too, and look how different John is. That’s what a genuinely independent source looks like.) One of them was largely copying the other. I think the stronger evidence both from modern analysis and from the ancient witnesses is in favor of the view that Mark is the more direct account. The ancient testimony that Matthew wrote Matthew can be explained quite well by the theory that Matthew is the source for part of the material that became the Gospel of Matthew.

Again, the only part of all of this that is at all unusual or idiosyncratic is my relatively more conservative stance compared to what you would hear from most NT scholars. (I’m a church historian who specializes in the history of Biblical interpretation, not an NT scholar per se.) Most NT scholars would simply scoff at the idea that Matthew had anything to do with Matthew or that Mark is based on Peter’s eyewitness account. What is dubious and speculative in the above is my attempt to account respectfully for the second-century evidence. The basic point that Mark and Matthew are clearly dependent on each other (i.e., one author used the other text as a starting point) is as solid as any result of historical/literary inquiry can be.

Perhaps I have. My apologies.

This is all about what can be proven historically. What the Church teaches is another matter. (And the word “proven” can only ever be used about history with heavy qualifications. history is all about probability.)

How about logic and reason?

Well, we both think we’re using logic and reason, obviously

Praise God! Are you going to teach RCIA or take the classes?

Peace,

That was actually a problem last fall, when I went into RCIA. The class was good but, from my perspective, a bit boring, and I kept interjecting things like “Well, Aquinas says this about that,” which confused the other participants. (I tried not to, but it is very hard for me to just sit still–it’s one of my faults.) The priest emailed me and suggested that I meet with him individually. By this time I was getting my usual cold feet, and I set the whole thing aside for another year. . . .

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

Galatians 2.7 says that Paul is the Apostle to the Uncircumcised just as Peter is Apostle to the Circumcised. They spilt the missionary work between them.

I really don’t think that is what it is saying. It is saying his teaching is recognized along that of Peter to the Jews. Anotherwards Jews or Gentiles are not to be excluded by any of them.

 

[rinnie]

Well, thanks for the clarification but it seems to be what you are doing, at least to me

Matthew was there - Mark and Luke were not.

Oh, come on Edwin!

They are all different. Matthew was an Apostle, Mark was Peter’s Gopher, Luke was Paul’s buddy and interviewed almost everyone in the area, and John was there but he was just different in his own way.

Perhaps I have. My apologies.

YES!!!

How about logic and reason?

Amen!

Indeed, clear now from your above response.

We are human - there will be differences!

List of Popes (Bishop of Rome) {And yes, I am aware of the Avignon controversy }

OK you got me there. But you have to concede that Buddhism is a collection of traditions and practices and with various deities. So I’ll stand corrected on one leg.

I was trying to make light out of my frustration.

It is probably easier to converse with you over wine or iced tea.



You are supporting my comment about learned and devout now - just kidding.

Praise God! Are you going to teach RCIA or take the classes?

Peace,

Edwin from you knowledge of the RC faith I think you COULD teach. And I am not kidding!

 

[rinnie]

I know.

That doesn’t really rephrase the question. Could you ask it again, and then I’ll happily answer.

I truly don’t know any easier way to ask it. Let me try.

If the Pope said this is a Infallible teaching, anotherwards he is using his power given to him by God to speak in the voice of the Holy Spirit, what is your proof that he is not?

Our proof is he has the power to do it, and can. What do you have to offer to show us he can’t and his teaching is not from God?

 

[Novocastrian]

I really don’t think that is what it is saying. It is saying his teaching is recognized along that of Peter to the Jews. Anotherwards Jews or Gentiles are not to be excluded by any of them.

Well, you can tell me I’m wrong, but here’s what it actually says (Gal. 2.7-9):

“On the contrary, when they saw that we had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised just as Peter [had been] to the circumcised, (for He who worked in Peter making him apostle to the circumcised worked in me also with respect to the nations), and when James and Kephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars [of the church], recognised in me the grace which * had been given, they gave to Barnabas and me the right-hand of fellowship, that we might go to the nations, and they to the circumcised.”*

 

[rinnie]

That’s something I should have addressed. Of course if Matthew is by the apostle Matthew then the whole picture is different. But simply using historical methods it seems highly unlikely that it is. (What the Church requires for faith, by its authority, is a separate discussion–we are supposedly talking about what can be shown historically without appealing to the Church’s authority.) Yes, there’s very early witness to Matthew having written a Gospel. But those same witnesses say he wrote it in Hebrew. Matthew as we have it is not in Hebrew, and while it’s got a number of “Aramaisms” I don’t think any serious scholars think that the book as we have it is a translation (and by “serious scholars” I’m including very conservative ones). Quite possibly (this is my own view) there was a Hebrew text by Matthew, now lost, which served as a major source for what we have as the Gospel of Matthew (my own very speculative opinion is that this is probably what scholars call “Q,” which wouldn’t include Matt. 16 anyway).

There are scholars who think that Matthew was written first. But even they do not, for the most part, think it was written by Matthew. And they are a small minority. The vast majority of scholars think that Mark was written first. If Mark was written first, then it’s highly unlikely that Matthew wrote the Gospel as we have it. The verbal parallels with Mark are too close. (Yes, it’s possible that Matthew sat down with the text of Mark and added other things from his own recollections, but it’s extremely unlikely. I can walk you through some of the specific reasons why it’s unlikely if you really want me to . . . )

Is there an argument behind this? You are acting as if this is all wild stuff I’m making up. I’m not giving you wild theories or extreme opinions. I’m giving you basic stuff that would be agreed on even by conservative scholars, for the most part. And the idea that KoG and KoH are the same is completely non-controversial except among dispensationalists.

That view of Mark is indeed found in the early Christian sources, and I tend to agree with it. However, it can’t be proven, so for purposes of the “spiral argument” it won’t hold.

There’s another view of Mark also found in early Christian writings, which is that it’s an abridgement of Matthew. If Matthew was written first, and by an Apostle, then that view would appear to be correct. In other words, I think you have to choose between the opinion that Matthew as we know it was written by an apostle, and that Mark is essentially Peter’s account put into written form by Mark. The similarities between the two Gospels are far too close to be accounted for simply by the fact that they’re telling the same story. (John is telling the same story too, and look how different John is. That’s what a genuinely independent source looks like.) One of them was largely copying the other. I think the stronger evidence both from modern analysis and from the ancient witnesses is in favor of the view that Mark is the more direct account. The ancient testimony that Matthew wrote Matthew can be explained quite well by the theory that Matthew is the source for part of the material that became the Gospel of Matthew.

Again, the only part of all of this that is at all unusual or idiosyncratic is my relatively more conservative stance compared to what you would hear from most NT scholars. (I’m a church historian who specializes in the history of Biblical interpretation, not an NT scholar per se.) Most NT scholars would simply scoff at the idea that Matthew had anything to do with Matthew or that Mark is based on Peter’s eyewitness account. What is dubious and speculative in the above is my attempt to account respectfully for the second-century evidence. The basic point that Mark and Matthew are clearly dependent on each other (i.e., one author used the other text as a starting point) is as solid as any result of historical/literary inquiry can be.

This is all about what can be proven historically. What the Church teaches is another matter. (And the word “proven” can only ever be used about history with heavy qualifications. history is all about probability.)

Well, we both think we’re using logic and reason, obviously

That was actually a problem last fall, when I went into RCIA. The class was good but, from my perspective, a bit boring, and I kept interjecting things like “Well, Aquinas says this about that,” which confused the other participants. (I tried not to, but it is very hard for me to just sit still–it’s one of my faults.) The priest emailed me and suggested that I meet with him individually. By this time I was getting my usual cold feet, and I set the whole thing aside for another year. . . .

Edwin

Edwin I am amazed Truely I am. For the first time in a LONG time, I am lost for words. I will be keeping you in my prayers.

 

[Novocastrian]

I truly don’t know any easier way to ask it. Let me try.

If the Pope said this is a Infallible teaching, anotherwards he is using his power given to him by God to speak in the voice of the Holy Spirit, what is your proof that he is not?

Our proof is he has the power to do it, and can. What do you have to offer to show us he can’t and his teaching is not from God?

Oh, ok. I understand you now.

Well, first I’d say that unless we have good reason to think him infallible, and I’d contend that we have none, we can assume that he’s fallible until proven otherwise.

However, we’re obviously just going to disagree on that bit. What I’d secondarily say is that we would know that the Pope (or anyone else!) is not infallible, if their teaching contradicts the plain sense of Scripture. E.g., if the Pope were to authoritatively teach tomorrow that Christ did not rise from the dead, you and I would both know that he was not infallible.

 

[rinnie]

Galatians 2.7 says that Paul is the Apostle to the Uncircumcised just as Peter is Apostle to the Circumcised. They spilt the missionary work between them.

No read on and read what you just quoted. You are contradicting what it says.

Yes it says Paul to the circumcised and Peter to the uncircumcised. Then it says they recognized the grace bestowed upon me…and gave me and Baranabas thier hands in partnership that WE should go to the gentiles and THEY to the circumcised.

Anothers Paul and his collegues should go to the gentiles did not exclude his preaching to the Jews as well. vice-versa.

 

[rinnie]

Oh, ok. I understand you now.

Well, first I’d say that unless we have good reason to think him infallible, and I’d contend that we have none, we can assume that he’s fallible until proven otherwise.

However, we’re obviously just going to disagree on that bit. What I’d secondarily say is that we would know that the Pope (or anyone else!) is not infallible, if their teaching contradicts the plain sense of Scripture. E.g., if the Pope were to authoritatively teach tomorrow that Christ did not rise from the dead, you and I would both know that he was not infallible.

Well to begin with how could the Pope speak infallible and go against the teaching of scripture. Unless you are giving the Pope more power then God.

I mean it is God who said when he speaks in his name its bound on earth as in heaven.

Now what more proof could be given then the word of God?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Edwin from you knowledge of the RC faith I think you COULD teach. And I am not kidding!

Agreed! Neither am I. That is why I did not include a smiley face or anything else to distract my intention.

Peace,

 

[ShortyLaRock_82]

Too much formality, maybe?

 

[JohntheBeloved3]

Holy Eucharist:
Matthew 26:26
I Corinthians 11:29-30
John 6:55
John 6:52

Marian Devotion:
Luke 1:30
Luke 1:28
Luke 1:48

Purgatory:
I Peter 3:19
I Peter 4:6
Matthew 18:34-35
Isaiah 6:5-7
Revelation 21:27
I Corinthians 3:11-15

Predestination:
I Timothy 2:3-4
II Peter 3:9
II Corinthians 8:3
Ezekiel 18:27-32

Faith Alone:
James 2:24
Romans 2:6
Matthew 5:16
Matthew 25:31-46
James 2:14-17
II Timothy 3:16-17
Colossians 1:10
Ephesians 2:10
Hebrews 10:24
Titus 3:8

Eternal Security:
I Corinthians 9:27
Hebrews 6:4-6
II Peter 2:20-22
Mark 13:13
Hebrews 10:26-29
I Samuel 16:14

Sola Scriptura:
II Peter 1:19-20
I Corinthians 11:2
II Thessalonians 2:15
John 21:25
I Timothy 3:15

Papal Authority:
Matthew 16:18-19

Saintly Intercession:
II Maccabees 15:13-14
Mark 9:4
Hebrews 12:1
Revelation 6:10
I Timothy 2:1
Revelation 5:8
Revelation 8:3
James 5:16
II Peter 1:4
Luke 20:35-36
John 17:20-23

 

[PRmerger]

Too much formality, maybe?

How much “formality” would be just right?

And is it possible to have “too much casual-ity”?

 

[PRmerger]

I am very reluctant to break communion with the people I’m already in communion with, including my wife.

Seek first the kingdom of God.

And then everything else will fall into place.

But I think I’ve finally got to a point where conscience requires me to enter into full communion with Rome. At the advice of the local priest, I’m waiting until I move early next year. And knowing parish RCIA programs, they may spin me out further . . . .

Edwin

I can’t tell you how happy that makes me!

:extrahappy::dancing::dancing::dancing:

And did I tell you that it makes me happy?

Just don’t be so grouchy and curmudgeonly to your poor, hapless RCIA director when you correct him about something, 'kay?

 

[PRmerger]

It couldn’t and didn’t. It could, however, have erred, had it not been listening to the Spirit.

Then this is nothing except an excellent apologia for the charism of infallibility.